“Investigate” is a necessary first step to gather evidence, even if it is obvious. But no, I did read the article and I do stand by what I said, because it’s right there in the quote you used:
“I think that going in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea, just to be honest with you,”
She is suggesting doing what every politic-playing traditional democrat or republican does when they want to appear to take action without taking action: Start an investigation. The next step? “Nothing.”
I don’t need to guess this. Because the quote, again, has Kamala expressly saying that investigation “shouldn’t go in the direction of” impeachment. Where then? She says two paragraphs later: “…maintain accountability when it comes to cuts to healthcare and oversight on the Iran war.” These are totally consistent with not pursuing impeachment, if it’s holding a bunch of showy hearings where they drag Pete Hegseth to answer for the Iran war, and Russel Vought for his Project 2025 stuff.
Which, to be clear, should happen. But Kamala’s quotes make clear, she thinks that is an excuse not to pursue impeachment. My point, which I already made above, is that it is a false dichotomy. They should do both.
What exactly do you think impeachment - which will not lead to removal - will accomplish? A third impeachment accomplishing something that the first two didn’t manage to do?
I’m still grumbling because I disagree, but I’m glad you did read the article, sorry for the accusation.
Politics is inherently about convincing people to move to your position. Another reference point is the difference between “strategy” and “tactics.”
Democrats are both extremely confident in the power of strategy and extremely inept in the concept of tactics. Strategy tells them that they should not take the first step until they have a path charted for the journey. Tactics tells them that they can take the best available first step and use new information gained from that step to plot the second step, and so on.
Your casual disregard for impeachment, likening it to “lifting skyscrapers off their foundation,” reveals that you cannot imagine a tactical approach, which epitomizes the problem with traditional democratic thinking. You think because two impeachments failed, it’s moronic to try a third without some incredible game-changing development.
Instead of that, I’d invite you to think about impeachment as a first step that we should take because it’s morally required, and because not doing so makes impeachment dead letter under the Constitution. An impeachment hearing reminds the public what standards are, what standards they should be following, and is an opportunity to sway the public to themselves pressure their senators to convict.
Putin understands tactics, and it’s why he now has control of Crimea (and arguably the United States). He has no master plan. But making the best available move to inch toward a target means often you get there, even if unexpectedly.
I’d recommend: Don’t be resigned and defeatist, and certainly don’t spread defeatism to others who may do what you have decided you can’t.
Defeatism barks up the wrong tree here. A lot of your assumptions do, but I respect the reply even while I disagree with much of it, so while I’m not energized to respond to every single point, one of the things that Lemmy does make difficult is foundational context - who I am, who you are. What I believe that didn’t get expressed in a particular comment.
I do believe impeachment is a waste of time. I do not think it will energize the voters. If anything, a third impeachment that also doesn’t result in removal continues those who complain that democrats are doing nothing.
Ultimately, the most important thing we need is to support truly progressive candidates, and help those that are getting the message out better. And in places like NYC where a real difference can be shown - because our current federal government is set up to allow obstruction far more than action - Congress can’t get shit done even with a majority, but it’s worse because there are so many estqablishment Dems, who are better than Oops All Fascists! but not great.
Eh. I hope that makes a bit of sense, I’m not taking the time to flesh it all out well.
I can respect that you have thoughtful opinion. We strongly disagree, which is a bummer, but at least you obviously care. I do, too.
I still rail against so many who really do NOT have a plan and just want to gripe about “somebody needs to do something” which is useless - I mean the people complaining who may or may not even bother to vote in the general election, much less do anything else.
I can respect that you have thoughtful opinion. We strongly disagree, which is a bummer, but at least you obviously care. I do, too.
I still rail against so many who really do NOT have a plan and just want to gripe about “somebody needs to do something” which is useless - I mean the people complaining who may or may not even bother to vote in the general election, much less do anything else.
You’ve got my upvote there! But yeah, all good and thanks for an interesting discussion.
“Investigate” is a necessary first step to gather evidence, even if it is obvious. But no, I did read the article and I do stand by what I said, because it’s right there in the quote you used:
She is suggesting doing what every politic-playing traditional democrat or republican does when they want to appear to take action without taking action: Start an investigation. The next step? “Nothing.”
I don’t need to guess this. Because the quote, again, has Kamala expressly saying that investigation “shouldn’t go in the direction of” impeachment. Where then? She says two paragraphs later: “…maintain accountability when it comes to cuts to healthcare and oversight on the Iran war.” These are totally consistent with not pursuing impeachment, if it’s holding a bunch of showy hearings where they drag Pete Hegseth to answer for the Iran war, and Russel Vought for his Project 2025 stuff.
Which, to be clear, should happen. But Kamala’s quotes make clear, she thinks that is an excuse not to pursue impeachment. My point, which I already made above, is that it is a false dichotomy. They should do both.
That’s how I read [past tense] the article.
What exactly do you think impeachment - which will not lead to removal - will accomplish? A third impeachment accomplishing something that the first two didn’t manage to do?
I’m still grumbling because I disagree, but I’m glad you did read the article, sorry for the accusation.
Ah, so you’re in the “we don’t have enough votes so why try” camp?
Again, what exactly will impeachment accomplish that makes you think it’s worth doing? What will a third one add?
I also don’t go around trying to lift skyscrapers off their foundations because it’s a fucking waste of energy better spent elsewhere.
Politics is inherently about convincing people to move to your position. Another reference point is the difference between “strategy” and “tactics.”
Democrats are both extremely confident in the power of strategy and extremely inept in the concept of tactics. Strategy tells them that they should not take the first step until they have a path charted for the journey. Tactics tells them that they can take the best available first step and use new information gained from that step to plot the second step, and so on.
Your casual disregard for impeachment, likening it to “lifting skyscrapers off their foundation,” reveals that you cannot imagine a tactical approach, which epitomizes the problem with traditional democratic thinking. You think because two impeachments failed, it’s moronic to try a third without some incredible game-changing development.
Instead of that, I’d invite you to think about impeachment as a first step that we should take because it’s morally required, and because not doing so makes impeachment dead letter under the Constitution. An impeachment hearing reminds the public what standards are, what standards they should be following, and is an opportunity to sway the public to themselves pressure their senators to convict.
Putin understands tactics, and it’s why he now has control of Crimea (and arguably the United States). He has no master plan. But making the best available move to inch toward a target means often you get there, even if unexpectedly.
I’d recommend: Don’t be resigned and defeatist, and certainly don’t spread defeatism to others who may do what you have decided you can’t.
Defeatism barks up the wrong tree here. A lot of your assumptions do, but I respect the reply even while I disagree with much of it, so while I’m not energized to respond to every single point, one of the things that Lemmy does make difficult is foundational context - who I am, who you are. What I believe that didn’t get expressed in a particular comment.
I do believe impeachment is a waste of time. I do not think it will energize the voters. If anything, a third impeachment that also doesn’t result in removal continues those who complain that democrats are doing nothing.
Ultimately, the most important thing we need is to support truly progressive candidates, and help those that are getting the message out better. And in places like NYC where a real difference can be shown - because our current federal government is set up to allow obstruction far more than action - Congress can’t get shit done even with a majority, but it’s worse because there are so many estqablishment Dems, who are better than Oops All Fascists! but not great.
Eh. I hope that makes a bit of sense, I’m not taking the time to flesh it all out well.
I can respect that you have thoughtful opinion. We strongly disagree, which is a bummer, but at least you obviously care. I do, too.
I still rail against so many who really do NOT have a plan and just want to gripe about “somebody needs to do something” which is useless - I mean the people complaining who may or may not even bother to vote in the general election, much less do anything else.
You’ve got my upvote there! But yeah, all good and thanks for an interesting discussion.